I agree there would be few immediate deaths. But I wonder what the impact on US infrastructure would be after a meteorite strike. Katrina managed to send a city into melt-down; it's hard to believe such an event would not lead to outcomes that were at least as bad.
The Laffer curve is not meant to be "real" in any usable sense. It's simply a useful pedagogical crutch that explains that increasing tax rates does not necessarily imply increasing revenue. A country's real Laffer curve, such as it is, is affected by all sorts of things and it makes no sense to suggest that it is possible to move up or down on it.
In the UK, cashiers routinely have their floats counted out and in every time they get on a register. Variances over a certain amount - usually a pound - are disciplinary action territory. If you can't count, you stack shelves until you see the error of your ways.
Who said anything about extrapolation? It simple seems pretty intuitive that storms of a certain size arrive according to *some* sort of point process - perhaps Poisson, perhaps something else - and fitting some sort of distribution to outsize storms is certainly possible.
Is there good data for storm frequency segmented by size? If there is, it would seem fairly straightforward to estimate the probability of outsize events.
Political reality, meet russotto. Russotto, this is political reality. Those things are not going to happen and are going to continue being crimes - I agree not all of them should be, but imagining they are going to go away is as pointless as voting for Ron Paul.
And you didn't mention white-collar fraud, one of the best uses of anti-money laundering rules.
Well, what's your alternative? Money laundering prevention is one of the simplest and most effective crime fighting tools around, as annoying as it may be.
They followed 12k users of sleeping pills, they didn't observe 12k deaths. They observed Cox hazard ratios on the order of 4/5 times, so there is unquestionably an effect; of course, now it's a correlation/causation question.
The correct next step would be a randomised trial. However, I don't see how you can ethically design a trial for this setup.
There will be lawsuits, no question, but I think you'll also be surprised at the speed at which insurance companies learn about self-driving cars and mandate whatever requirements they find actually make a difference.
The word "warrant" does not necessarily mean a court warrant. The words "administrative subpoena" do not mean "court issued subpoena". Stop swinging your dick around and do your research a little bit better.
It's actually quite shocking what we don't know about female biology. There is still not a scientific consensus on whether the G-spot exists. The clitoris only made it into textbooks in the mid 20th century. A sort of scientific analogue of the Bechdel test, I suppose.
That was a fair argument in 1995, but in 2012 internet access is not a sort of special priviledge toy, and it's reasonable to assume that it is many students' only connection.
Perhaps you should find out what the law is before going all tinfoil hat at Facebook. Specifically, they are required to give up this information and the police are not required to have a court-issued warrant.
What exactly about "Modern rabid feminism is the greatest visitation by the Angel of Death AT LEAST since the Nazi holocaust" does not look serious to you? Now this might be sarcasm by hyperbole, but it doesn't read like it to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree there would be few immediate deaths. But I wonder what the impact on US infrastructure would be after a meteorite strike. Katrina managed to send a city into melt-down; it's hard to believe such an event would not lead to outcomes that were at least as bad.
Finally, a use for teenage girls...
The Laffer curve is not meant to be "real" in any usable sense. It's simply a useful pedagogical crutch that explains that increasing tax rates does not necessarily imply increasing revenue. A country's real Laffer curve, such as it is, is affected by all sorts of things and it makes no sense to suggest that it is possible to move up or down on it.
In the UK, cashiers routinely have their floats counted out and in every time they get on a register. Variances over a certain amount - usually a pound - are disciplinary action territory. If you can't count, you stack shelves until you see the error of your ways.
Who said anything about extrapolation? It simple seems pretty intuitive that storms of a certain size arrive according to *some* sort of point process - perhaps Poisson, perhaps something else - and fitting some sort of distribution to outsize storms is certainly possible.
Is there good data for storm frequency segmented by size? If there is, it would seem fairly straightforward to estimate the probability of outsize events.
And you didn't mention white-collar fraud, one of the best uses of anti-money laundering rules.
Surely it would be easier to do 1 Mar - 1 Feb.
Date classes are indeed a wonderful (if cruel) introduction to real world programming.
We tried that. Ponies. *Shudder*
Well, what's your alternative? Money laundering prevention is one of the simplest and most effective crime fighting tools around, as annoying as it may be.
The correct next step would be a randomised trial. However, I don't see how you can ethically design a trial for this setup.
AWS revenue: $500m. Google revenue: $billions. Who's missed the boat again?
There will be lawsuits, no question, but I think you'll also be surprised at the speed at which insurance companies learn about self-driving cars and mandate whatever requirements they find actually make a difference.
The word "warrant" does not necessarily mean a court warrant. The words "administrative subpoena" do not mean "court issued subpoena". Stop swinging your dick around and do your research a little bit better.
Protip: all these other countries are not as rich as the US, in large part due to their trade policies.
How much could I pay you for the alternative - scrabbling on a rubbish heap for your dinner?
It's actually quite shocking what we don't know about female biology. There is still not a scientific consensus on whether the G-spot exists. The clitoris only made it into textbooks in the mid 20th century. A sort of scientific analogue of the Bechdel test, I suppose.
That was a fair argument in 1995, but in 2012 internet access is not a sort of special priviledge toy, and it's reasonable to assume that it is many students' only connection.
Perhaps you should find out what the law is before going all tinfoil hat at Facebook. Specifically, they are required to give up this information and the police are not required to have a court-issued warrant.
What exactly about "Modern rabid feminism is the greatest visitation by the Angel of Death AT LEAST since the Nazi holocaust" does not look serious to you? Now this might be sarcasm by hyperbole, but it doesn't read like it to me.
It happened often enough in the UK that safety videos were made about it. No links as I am at work, but it's easy enough to find on Youtube.
Ross Anderson's "Security Engineering" is also a fantastic read in this vein.
Just because the unusual happened to you doesn't mean it isn't unusual. You're self-selecting.
Wow, Godwinned in two posts. Protip: slanted divorce settlements are not equivalent to the extermination of six million undesirables.